hm_stanley

sure bruce.. sorry for the late reply.. just sent you an email.

I just found these guys.. never heard about them before? Do they regurgitate old games and throw them up on the net?

Wow, we got an old fashioned hoe down goin' on here. Nazi incompetency vs Russian incompitency. and to think, this was a thread started about a panther vs a Sherman and instead we got to fight world war II all over again. Can't wait for the next thread entitled, "gasp! I thought the Maus could travel the entire length of the QB map without running out of gasoline. We need to discuss this with BFC RIGHT NOW!!!". Maybe in that thread we could re-fight the cold war.

Oh, typo in my post, Malthius??? Have no idea how the iPhone came up with that one. It should read "Makeup". Not that weird sounding German philosopher name.

I agree with you, my sample set is waaaayy too small. But these are elements I've uncountered in about 30+ games.

I've found an interesting combination of unit setups that I find interesting. However, first things first, One thing that is not clear are what are units relative strengths, that is how are they made up weapons wise. For example, there is no need to add a bazooka to an airborne squad, since they have one contained in one squad. I found the useful element of adding a BAR to those platoons, since it provides them some very interesting firepower. On the otherhand, armored pzgrdn (mech infantry, not regular infantry) platoon contain no anti tank capability, which can be quite confusing to a new person aartting up ther forces. The other aspect of force setup is the quality of that unit in terms of length of service and morale. I can get by much better (in terms of quality of fight, not plugging holes on the defensive) with one extreme airborne company then setting up two regular airborne companies, it seems quality trumps quantity everytime, with the exception of armor, which really doesnt seem affected by unit quality considerations. I've had regular armor units act like gods on the battlefield vs elite armor elements getting hit once by a spalling round and buggin out, this isn't so for the infantry elements. Now why? I have idea, but I've won games with little more than a company of crack men duking it out with 2x as many enemy and coming out on top more often than not. I'm curious to what other people have found? To sum: 1. Armor seems least affected morale and longevity multipliers 2. Infantry get a huge bonus with incrementing their morale multiplier 3. Infantry get a smaller multiplier when improving their longevity (veteran vs crack for example) 4. BFC should try to provide more granularity to platoon Malthus, that is, how many men and what they are fielding. Thanks,

Here is my follow up question though. It appears that each mortar team has 100 rounds if you look at the artillery call in screen. But each ammo carrier only has 50 rounds and the mortar team itself only has 10, where is the other 40? Is the 100 rounds aggregate for all four mortars in the platoon? I get sacked out every time I try to figure this calculus out. Any sane answers greatly appreciated.

It's easy to find out. Just open the saved email game and then do some stuff and exit. Then open up a qb and do some stuff and when it gets to the screen where it asks you what level you want to play on, it will display the skill of the last opened game, that being the email game. That's how I figured it out by accident.

C2 contact can only be done if the unit is stopped, correct? Also, what happens if the radio man is killed or wounded, does someone else throw on that pack? I was wondering, since I'm finally getting used to a more realistic combat model where if one guy dies, the entire squad doesn't immediately reform with all the best weapons, and a tank driver getting killed and two seconds later, poof you have a new driver. However my question is really about C2 coordination, the hq unit needs to stop and call in, is that correct? Also, does anyone know what the delay is before C2 contact is made with the higher ups? Also, tanks do not need to stop to maintain C2, correct? Anyway, any help here is appreciated.

The gun getting knocked out is something I've experienced quite a bit with games. So, I guess it sounds about right to me.

How useful are they? Also, is it smarter to throw all mortars under the company hq and just squat them somewhere and call in fire? I'm curious what others think, since I have no experience with light mortars in direct fire following the platoon.

Hi, I'm lpoking for an opponent to play either cats chasing dogs or huzzar or a qb with German recon vs American airborne. Pm me please for a match

You can, and you are left with platoons or companies, of which you can delete further.

How should one go about creating an order of battle in a scenario? For example, it's easier to delete the top level element in a battalion or company and then just have platoons. Then I got to thinking (which is a bad thing) , are you nerfing the units capability in the process? That is, what harm, if any do the platoons have if they lack a company hq? If the platoon hq gets squashed, the other platoons keep going and have no problem, but the other platoons also will not have the coordination on one company hq feeding information to others. So it seems to me that keeping the company/battalion intact and adding and deleting units within it makes more sense then stacking platoons. I'm curious what others think.

Airborne vs German Recon. Thin long slices of maps. Those are my favorites.

Bumping this for some more help play testing.

I've finished my first scenario.. I have uploaded it to a site called fileserve. It should be up there for a few days. If you're interested in playing it, please do, feedback appreciated. I'd be very interested in comments on the battle strength or any other tidbits that would make this a neat and useful scenario. It's Airborne vs. German Recon (my favorite), and I think it offers the chance for some cool screenshots of Germans assaulting a pretty intimidating position, and most importantly FUN! It has one plan each for the Germans and Americans. I plan on adding more, but this is my first shot to make sure the play balance is there. The Monk's Wine.btt File size: 725.55 KB

Yea, I use the separate command all the time, I guess I'm asking for a feature that cuts down on the total number of icon clicks. Sometimes I can lose track of what, and seeing that C2 clearly is the most important element of this game (without force cohesion, it becomes a mess rather fast), I was thinking of this this weekend while playing.

Every war movie I've eve seen had the nco yappin, "SPREAD OUT!!" to the active platoon. You know I would love to have a command like this when advancing, maybe have the squad spread out over four or five hexes instead of the normal one or two. Even when in a defensive position, the ability to disperse the men without losing C2 would be a neat feature for those god awful mortar barrages or just to mitigate bunching. Anyway, I was thinking of that the weekend when I was playing.

...still being processed... how did you get a 2hr video on Youtubey?

Right, however there were some nazis who did get the detoriating situation, hence the hertzer, a truly interesting design that for the time was a perfect compromise of low tech and high tech components.

Hey Chris, when you are done, can I have those as well. I too am used to the color. Thanks

I've spent a great deal of time studying the second and third (and forth) battles of Kharkov, which to me exemplify the clash of doctrines the Germans were struggling with. On one side, a mobile flexible defense, an elegant combined arms offensive, a static hold at all costs defense and blitzkrieg. The results encompass everything that the Germans were good and bad at. I can't go into all the details of those engagements and what gleaned from the information, but what I can say is at the micro level it's an excellent allegory to the larger German tactical and strategic relalaties. I've tried to uncover information about the lesser known strategy in 1943 that Manstein called for call "backhand blow". The elastic defense that worked so well for him in kharkov Kursk to me is an example of the enormous struggle the Germans were faced with in a changing environment. It's clear that many felt, including hitler that it's outcome was clearly "not in the bag". Again, given the quality of units in Kursk, I often wonder what would have happened if mainstein had gotten his way and moved to a more mobile, non hedgehog defense. When I go there, all I come away with is that it would have lengthened the war, never changing the eventual outcome.

Panther was roughly 15% more in costs than your average panzer iv. That's pretty amazing considering the quality of the tank. I think I read somewhere it was 140,000 RM, compared to 115,000 RM. The out the door cost was in the neighborhood of 210,000 RM. That compared to the Tiger, whose out the door cost was, in some circles 1M RM, (I tend to use the Tigerfibel as reference, which pegged it at 800,000 RM. but, the Germans managed to produce 5000+ Panthers of all variants in two years, and to think in that same time the US probably produced 5x that number in Shermans really gets to to the meat of the matter, Germany could not produce enough of anything to sustain total war. I offer think what would have happened if the Germans were on a war footing from 1939 onwards, and I still think that eventually they would have been beaten. I just don't see how an economy that was fighting a protracted two front war of attrition could win, regardless of the superiority of their technology. I mean some argue that Hitler knew he was losing the arms race in 1937, 1938 and he went for broke. He had three years to knock Russia, England and France out of the war, and he only accomplished one of the three by 1942, and by that date, it was too late.

Weren't these mortars inside the halftracks? I guess that is how BFC modeled them? Are we going to are mortars inside the track or no?